Another obvious parallel is that between the designer and the Great Leader. History is
littered with men (though interestingly, not women) who believe or believed
themselves to be living gods. Their aim is to redesign the world, and they nurture their
own image even to the extent of erecting statues and inventing divine names for
themselves. Other humans are there only for their benefit.

Of course, not all leaders are of that ilk. Some may even start out with genuine
hopes and plans for the betterment of humankind. But in order to enter politics, one
must first have the desire to change the world, and secondly have the belief that one
can and should do so. These characteristics are already dangerous, since the desire
and the belief are no guarantee of intelligence or human understanding. The arrogance
of political, religious and philosophical fanatics who claim to “know” the truth is a
massive threat to the wellbeing of anyone who comes under their influence.

So too is the blinkered vision of those who destroy the balance of nature for the sake
of short-term profit. Whether that balance is the product of natural evolution or
deliberate design is immaterial, since the result will be the same. Those who lead the
processes of destruction (and it is humans who take these decisions, even if they hide
themselves behind the façades of the corporations) impose lines of thought that are
based either on “knowing” or on deliberately brushing aside those ideas that run
counter to their “knowledge”.

It may be argued by those who are committed to a thought system that without such
commitment there can be no decisions and no actions. However, it is precisely the
lack of commitment that promotes open-mindedness and tolerance, which have to be
the hallmark of any fair and balanced society. Conflict arises from commitment; it is
only when we acknowledge the possibility that there are at least two sides to an
argument that co-existence becomes possible. Decisions and actions will then be
based on consideration for all points of view instead of one, to the exclusion (and
consequent resentment) of others. We are talking here, though, of a very limited field
of decision. The basic direction of all religious and non-religious systems is the
betterment of the human condition, and an agnostic is just as capable as a Christian or
an atheist when it comes to determining the need for food, shelter, healthcare, etc.
There will certainly be differences, however, in the approach to education, and this is
probably the one political field in which dangerous seeds may be sown by committed
teachers.